Forums

ForumsPopular Media

Movie sequels

Posted Mar 30, '14 at 12:46am

R2D21999

R2D21999

8,110 posts

So at a movie theater I was about to watch the Lego Movie, but before I saw it one of the trailers caught my eye which is a movie called The Legends of Oz Dorthy's Return. As much as I really thought how bad of an idea this movie is and how lame it looks(then again they may be aiming towards a more younger audience). It spawned an idea about movie sequels.

So what do you think of movie sequels? Do you think they're better than the one(s) before it? Or do you think that the sequel was trash in comparison to the to the first few? Or maybe there is a movie sequel coming out(like that Wizard of Oz thing I just posted) that you just feel like posting and commenting about.

Averagely, at least from most of the movies I've seen, the first movies were always the best ones. For example the first Spiderman(not the Amazing Spiderman) in my opinion was better than the others. Starwars Episodes 4 to 6 were also way more better than 1 to 3. The first Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark was also a lot better than Indiana Jones Crystal Skull(Those are the only Indy films I've seen). Those movies and their sequels are the only ones to come to my mind right now.

So again, what are your people's opinions on movie sequels?

 

Posted Mar 30, '14 at 7:43am

MacII

MacII

1,369 posts

I think all those even just proposing movie sequels without a good reason why, say of a life-or-death nature, should be shot on the spot.

 

Posted Mar 30, '14 at 11:33am

09philj

09philj

858 posts

Sequels rarely improve on/are as good as the originals and are often just cash cows. One of the few exceptions is toy story.

 

Posted Mar 30, '14 at 11:48am

Hectichermit

Hectichermit

1,152 posts

eh I think it depends on the original movie/story, everyone argues that the first 3 star wars shouldn't have been made but if you start at the 4th one then it is obvious that there were going to be 3 more before it, technically a prequel . Given that I really didn't care much for the Toy Story sequels. The original was fine on its own. Anyways things like the sequel to 300 should be shot down.

 

Posted Mar 30, '14 at 12:50pm

xXxDAPRO89xXx

xXxDAPRO89xXx

3,549 posts

An animated Wizard of Oz sequel? Looks like ****... Just shows how bad the movie industry is getting these days.

In my opinion there should only be sequels to movies that are based from book trilogies for example. Other than that most sequels are pointless and really suck.

 

Posted Mar 30, '14 at 12:57pm

Hectichermit

Hectichermit

1,152 posts

Well I think there is more than one book based on the setting of Oz, there are several, this is probably based on others also they did already make another movie its called "Oz the Great and Powerful"

so yea to clue ya'll in read more books...or at least consider anything based on a book has more then one to it

 

Posted Mar 30, '14 at 7:12pm

MacII

MacII

1,369 posts

One of the few exceptions is toy story.

Oh, right, we're talking sequels [slap self smiley] I was thinking remakes.

Um, no, sequels can go. As such. Pretty much. Y'r honor ;) (Unless involving unlikely combos of entirely unrelated extraterrestrials. E.g.)

 

Posted Mar 30, '14 at 11:54pm

Ishtaron

Ishtaron

61 posts

The first sequel tends to be better after the first has had success and they can get a bigger budget.  It's the third movie where things go horribly wrong.  Star Wars Episode 5 is usually considered the best, but by Episode 6 people stopped telling George Lucas he couldn't do certain things and the studio wanted a cash cow so we get stuck with Ewoks.  Most people consider Spider Man 2 and X-Men 2 to be the best movies of their trilogies while the third is usually considered the worst.

Of course, those were all planned to be trilogies.  The 300 sequel goes even further overboard than the original movie and looks like it'll be horrible.  The Fast and the Furious sequels are progressively worse, excluding Tokyo Drift which has so little to do with the others I don't consider it an F&F movie and so bad I don't want to remember it at all.

Overall, if you're making a sequel to make money it'll be nearly unwatchable.  If you're making a sequel to tell a story, stop at 2 or stick to the original story plan.  The more you try to rush the sequels the more likely you are to ruin the series with a bad movie.

 

Posted Mar 31, '14 at 6:12am

CherryCoke360

CherryCoke360

415 posts

Some sequels do nothing but reference the first one, like anchorman 2 did with anchorman.

 

Posted Mar 31, '14 at 7:33am

Terry_Logic

Terry_Logic

3,993 posts

Some of you may disagree with me here, but I thought Harold and Kumar Esacpe From Guantanamo Bay was way better than White Castle. Don't get me wrong, White Castle was funny, but Guantanamo Bay took it to new levels.

Some sequels do nothing but reference the first one, like anchorman 2 did with anchorman.

Funny you mention those, I actually just saw an Anchorman double feature last night. I agree that one really wouldn't understand the sequel had he not seen the first, but upon watching them back to back, I've found that they are two very different movies.

 
Reply to Movie sequels

You must be logged in to post a reply!